Nikon Rumors is expecting to hear an announcement mid-this week that Nikon will release the long awaited AFS 80-400VR. They expect it to be priced at/or around $2,900 in the Japanese market, and perhaps less in the US market. In fact, they are suggesting a "Release Date" of March 14, 2013.
If true, this would be a long awaited release, and a true game changer for some of us that shoot wildlife and action outdoors. I have to admit, if this rumor is correct, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that the price is so high. Yet another reason I wish Nikon was more Canon-like. Canon would also probably release an AFS 80-400 f4.5-5.6 without VR, and sell it for $1,600. I'd be ALL OVER that.
What do you think? At $2,500-3,000, is this a lens you'll jump at?
I've been waiting for the upgraded version of this lens, but price will determine if I purchase one. If and when this lens is announced, I will review the specs vs. MSRP and decide if I will add this lens to my kit.
________________________________________ 45+ years of Nikon ownership and counting Visit my SmugMug gallery
>Nikon Rumors is expecting to hear an announcement mid-this >week that Nikon will release the long awaited AFS 80-400VR. >They expect it to be priced at/or around $2,900 in the >Japanese market, and perhaps less in the US market. In fact, >they are suggesting a "Release Date" of March 14, >2013. > >If true, this would be a long awaited release, and a true game >changer for some of us that shoot wildlife and action >outdoors. I have to admit, if this rumor is correct, I'm >disappointed (but not surprised) that the price is so high. >Yet another reason I wish Nikon was more Canon-like. Canon >would also probably release an AFS 80-400 f4.5-5.6 without VR, >and sell it for $1,600. I'd be ALL OVER that. > >What do you think? At $2,500-3,000, is this a lens you'll >jump at?
I can't imagine a sale price of $2900 USD for a lens like that. If the Canon 100-400 is any indication, $1600 is more realistic. $2000 tops. For an F4.5 -5.6 lens, they'd have a really hard time selling it any higher.
I agree. I'm just reporting what I read. But, the old non-AFS version still sells new for $1,600. I was expecting the new version to top $2,000, but not be near $3,000. Then again, it was a "rumor". Though, they did nail the D7100 release right on schedule.
Sadly, I've waited all these years for this lens, and now I don't think I'll be able to afford or justify the purchase at that price. For that money, I could buy a used 70-200 f2.8 VRI, and an AFS 300 f4, and probably have a little left over to put toward a TC14.
I doubt it will be 2900.00 as the Canon 100-400 ( a very good lens) is 1600.00. If the Nikkor is as sharp or more so than the Canon it will certainly be worth 2000.00 though. we continue to wait..............
In the price range of $2700 to $2900 it would have to compete with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which is bright enough to retain full AF capability with converters, offering focal length up to 600mm. At this price level, unless the new lens has much better IQ than the Sigma I would be tempted to spend a little extra to have f2.8 up to 300mm and the option to go 420mm f4 or 600mm f5.6
It will also have to offer much better IQ than the 300 f4 AF-S + 1.4TC combo
Weight is basically the same as before even though the lens is very different. So portability has not been compromised. Tripod mode on the VR system! Close focus distance better than before so maybe it will be able to do butterflies nicely...the old one could not.
The press release does not say if the tripod collar is included or not.
Lots of fancy glass but the MTF charts are not quite as stellar as those of the 70-200 f4. Fortunately biased towards good performance at the long end - which is the reason for buying this lens.
Interested but I will wait for some test results. At that price there are other options to consider
I just bought my second 300mm F/4.0. I have the TC 1.4 II. I doubt that the new 80-400 can compete in terms if IQ. I had the previous 80-400 which I sold when I bought my 70-200 VRII and I have no regrets about having sold it.
Nikonrumors stated yesterday "This lens has been long overdue for replacement - numerous patents were filed in the past and the lens had a designated internal number for years. My guess is that Nikon had this lens ready for a long time, but their current financial situation pushed them to release in now (together with the D7100 and the new DX compact camera) in order to meet their financial goals."
The 80-400 AF-S announcement made by Nikon USA indicates "Nikon's second generation Vibration Reduction (VR) enables shooting at shutter speeds up to 4x slower" and this seems to confirm that this lens was readied a while ago. If you read the Nikon USA 70-200 F/4.0 description, it states that this other lens has "Nikon's third-generation Vibration Reduction (VR)".
The price for the new 80-400 seems high. I'll check back in 12 to 18 months after other people have had a chance to truly use this new lens.
So I too am quite happy to stick with my 300mm F/4.0.
Just a note about the risk of dust. I carry 2 bodies with me always. I prefer not to change a lens in an open boat, in dusty places and so on.
Yes, I believe that the AFS 300 f4 plus the TC14 is probably my solution for shooting outfielders in baseball. Someday, when my younger son moves to night football, I will need an f2.8 tele zoom. I already feel somewhat of a need for that lens for basketball. Even used, a 70-200 f2.8 would be over $1,500. I just can't justify two of those super expensive lenses for my hobby. It would be like buying a $200,000 Ferrari because I occasionally drive fast on the weekends. Also, the newest Sigma 70-200 f2.8 gets real good reviews. I could get that lens and an AFS 300 f4 for, and probably a TC too, for $2,700.
I'm not angry with Nikon for charging so much for this lens. The price probably indicates that it's very good at 400mm, which the older version wasn't. I'm more disappointed.
On the bright side, used versions of the old lens should be popping up everywhere in 2013, and probably selling on KEH for $500-700. For that price, I might buy one just to see how it tracks focus on a baseball field.
If you need to use a TELECONVERTER with a $2700 lens then something is seriously wrong. My prediction is Nikon got greedy with this one and the price will come screaming down when very few buy it. It's an OUTDOOR sports and wildlife lens at best. It cannot be used indoors in basketball arenas or hockey venues that are poorly lit. The price is obscene for an f4 lens. This lens should be $1800. Then it would sell. At $2700....forget about it.
>If you need to use a TELECONVERTER with a $2700 lens then >something is seriously wrong.
I use a TC with my 400 f/2.8, which cost me considerably more than $2,700 even though I bought it used.
>My prediction is Nikon got >greedy with this one and the price will come screaming down >when very few buy it.
Maybe Nikon doesn't expect to sell that many. They have struggled for years to keep longer lenses in stock, even before the floods and tsunami. Maybe they calculated how many 80-400's they can produce on a regular basis and priced it to make the demand equal to the supply until they can increase production.
>It's an OUTDOOR sports and wildlife lens >at best. It cannot be used indoors in basketball arenas or >hockey venues that are poorly lit.
Yes, but it does something that none of the 2.8 lenses does, which is cover a 5:1 zoom range. That's a useful attribute for outdoor sports. I load my bag with a different set of lenses for indoor sports than for outdoor sports anyway. I don't take my 400 f/2.8 indoors (except for ice hockey), and I don't take my short f/1.8 lenses for outdoors. About the only lens that routinely goes both places is the 70-200.
The problem with using a 300mm with TC vs the 80-400 is the age old issue. One fixed focal length versus the range of 80-400 plus the TC. I love to shoot at air shows. I need a long lens to get those single plane exhibitions but then when formation flights go by you need less magnification. Hence the 70-200mm as a second body/lens combo. The same thing happens when shooting other birds - the feathered kind. You need a long lens but then something flies by that is closer and you can't shoot it with the long lens. I have the 70-200mm zoom (sometimes used with a TC) and a 300mm f/2.8. That gets to be a huge load on this 71 year old body and the thought of the new 80-400mm is really attractive. I could sell both the 300mm and the 70-200mm and have lots left over for the time Nikon releases the D400.